Inclusive climate change mitigation and food security policy under 1.5C climate goal

Shinichiro Fujimori, Tomoko Hasegawa, Joeri Rogelj, Xuanming Su, Petr Havlik, Volker Krey, Kiyoshi Takahashi, Keywan Riahi

Publikation: Beitrag in einer FachzeitschriftArtikelForschungBegutachtung

Abstract

Climate change mitigation to limit warming to 1.5C or well below 2C, as suggested by the Paris Agreement, can rely on large-scale deployment of land-related measures (e.g. afforestation, or bioenergy production). This can increase food prices, and hence raises food security concerns. Here we show how an inclusive policy design can avoid these adverse side-effects. Food-security support through international aid, bioenergy tax, or domestic reallocation of income can shield impoverished and vulnerable people from the additional risk of hunger that would be caused by the economic effects of policies narrowly focussing on climate objectives only. In the absence of such support, 35% more people might be at risk of hunger by 2050 (i.e. 84 million additional people) in a 2C-consistent scenario. The additional global welfare changes due to inclusive climate policies are small (0.1%) compared to the total climate mitigation cost (3.7% welfare loss), and the financial costs of international aid amount to about half a percent of high-income countries' GDP. This implies that climate policy should treat this issue carefully. Although there are challenges to implement food policies, options exist to avoid the food security concerns often linked to climate mitigation.

Originalspracheenglisch
Aufsatznummer074033
FachzeitschriftEnvironmental Research Letters
Jahrgang13
Ausgabenummer7
DOIs
PublikationsstatusVeröffentlicht - 6 Jul 2018

Fingerprint

Nutrition Policy
Food Supply
Climate Change
food security
Climate
Climate change
international aid
hunger
bioenergy
environmental policy
climate
mitigation
income
Hunger
food policy
afforestation
Gross Domestic Product
cost
shield
Costs and Cost Analysis

Schlagwörter

    ASJC Scopus subject areas

    • !!Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment
    • !!Environmental Science(all)
    • !!Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

    Dies zitieren

    Fujimori, S., Hasegawa, T., Rogelj, J., Su, X., Havlik, P., Krey, V., ... Riahi, K. (2018). Inclusive climate change mitigation and food security policy under 1.5C climate goal. Environmental Research Letters, 13(7), [074033]. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aad0f7

    Inclusive climate change mitigation and food security policy under 1.5C climate goal. / Fujimori, Shinichiro; Hasegawa, Tomoko; Rogelj, Joeri; Su, Xuanming; Havlik, Petr; Krey, Volker; Takahashi, Kiyoshi; Riahi, Keywan.

    in: Environmental Research Letters, Jahrgang 13, Nr. 7, 074033, 06.07.2018.

    Publikation: Beitrag in einer FachzeitschriftArtikelForschungBegutachtung

    Fujimori, S, Hasegawa, T, Rogelj, J, Su, X, Havlik, P, Krey, V, Takahashi, K & Riahi, K 2018, 'Inclusive climate change mitigation and food security policy under 1.5C climate goal' Environmental Research Letters, Jg. 13, Nr. 7, 074033. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aad0f7
    Fujimori, Shinichiro ; Hasegawa, Tomoko ; Rogelj, Joeri ; Su, Xuanming ; Havlik, Petr ; Krey, Volker ; Takahashi, Kiyoshi ; Riahi, Keywan. / Inclusive climate change mitigation and food security policy under 1.5C climate goal. in: Environmental Research Letters. 2018 ; Jahrgang 13, Nr. 7.
    @article{b1b0d27d170b4025b8a053af78575397,
    title = "Inclusive climate change mitigation and food security policy under 1.5◦C climate goal",
    abstract = "Climate change mitigation to limit warming to 1.5◦C or well below 2◦C, as suggested by the Paris Agreement, can rely on large-scale deployment of land-related measures (e.g. afforestation, or bioenergy production). This can increase food prices, and hence raises food security concerns. Here we show how an inclusive policy design can avoid these adverse side-effects. Food-security support through international aid, bioenergy tax, or domestic reallocation of income can shield impoverished and vulnerable people from the additional risk of hunger that would be caused by the economic effects of policies narrowly focussing on climate objectives only. In the absence of such support, 35{\%} more people might be at risk of hunger by 2050 (i.e. 84 million additional people) in a 2◦C-consistent scenario. The additional global welfare changes due to inclusive climate policies are small (0.1{\%}) compared to the total climate mitigation cost (3.7{\%} welfare loss), and the financial costs of international aid amount to about half a percent of high-income countries' GDP. This implies that climate policy should treat this issue carefully. Although there are challenges to implement food policies, options exist to avoid the food security concerns often linked to climate mitigation.",
    keywords = "1.5 and 2 degree goal, Climate change mitigation, Food security, Inclusive policy",
    author = "Shinichiro Fujimori and Tomoko Hasegawa and Joeri Rogelj and Xuanming Su and Petr Havlik and Volker Krey and Kiyoshi Takahashi and Keywan Riahi",
    year = "2018",
    month = "7",
    day = "6",
    doi = "10.1088/1748-9326/aad0f7",
    language = "English",
    volume = "13",
    journal = "Environmental Research Letters",
    issn = "1748-9318",
    publisher = "IOP Publishing",
    number = "7",

    }

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Inclusive climate change mitigation and food security policy under 1.5◦C climate goal

    AU - Fujimori, Shinichiro

    AU - Hasegawa, Tomoko

    AU - Rogelj, Joeri

    AU - Su, Xuanming

    AU - Havlik, Petr

    AU - Krey, Volker

    AU - Takahashi, Kiyoshi

    AU - Riahi, Keywan

    PY - 2018/7/6

    Y1 - 2018/7/6

    N2 - Climate change mitigation to limit warming to 1.5◦C or well below 2◦C, as suggested by the Paris Agreement, can rely on large-scale deployment of land-related measures (e.g. afforestation, or bioenergy production). This can increase food prices, and hence raises food security concerns. Here we show how an inclusive policy design can avoid these adverse side-effects. Food-security support through international aid, bioenergy tax, or domestic reallocation of income can shield impoverished and vulnerable people from the additional risk of hunger that would be caused by the economic effects of policies narrowly focussing on climate objectives only. In the absence of such support, 35% more people might be at risk of hunger by 2050 (i.e. 84 million additional people) in a 2◦C-consistent scenario. The additional global welfare changes due to inclusive climate policies are small (0.1%) compared to the total climate mitigation cost (3.7% welfare loss), and the financial costs of international aid amount to about half a percent of high-income countries' GDP. This implies that climate policy should treat this issue carefully. Although there are challenges to implement food policies, options exist to avoid the food security concerns often linked to climate mitigation.

    AB - Climate change mitigation to limit warming to 1.5◦C or well below 2◦C, as suggested by the Paris Agreement, can rely on large-scale deployment of land-related measures (e.g. afforestation, or bioenergy production). This can increase food prices, and hence raises food security concerns. Here we show how an inclusive policy design can avoid these adverse side-effects. Food-security support through international aid, bioenergy tax, or domestic reallocation of income can shield impoverished and vulnerable people from the additional risk of hunger that would be caused by the economic effects of policies narrowly focussing on climate objectives only. In the absence of such support, 35% more people might be at risk of hunger by 2050 (i.e. 84 million additional people) in a 2◦C-consistent scenario. The additional global welfare changes due to inclusive climate policies are small (0.1%) compared to the total climate mitigation cost (3.7% welfare loss), and the financial costs of international aid amount to about half a percent of high-income countries' GDP. This implies that climate policy should treat this issue carefully. Although there are challenges to implement food policies, options exist to avoid the food security concerns often linked to climate mitigation.

    KW - 1.5 and 2 degree goal

    KW - Climate change mitigation

    KW - Food security

    KW - Inclusive policy

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85056562745&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    U2 - 10.1088/1748-9326/aad0f7

    DO - 10.1088/1748-9326/aad0f7

    M3 - Article

    VL - 13

    JO - Environmental Research Letters

    JF - Environmental Research Letters

    SN - 1748-9318

    IS - 7

    M1 - 074033

    ER -